Why Superman Fails As a Video Game Character

A test of Superman is a test of selflessness and our expectations of a being that is completely selfless, despite his omnipotence. And, perhaps, selfless behaviors are just not that much fun to enact. Who wants responsibility to others to exclusively motivate play?

It's not easy to be me.

-- Five for Fighting, “Superman (It's Not Easy)” (EMI, 2001)

In response to some of the criticism of the events of the new Superman movie, Man of Steel, Bill Gibron recently asked in an article, “Why are so many picking on Superman for destroying a few hundred thousand people when his actions clearly save billions?” (”Man of Steel and the Wanton Detruction of Human Life”, PopMatters, 17 June 2013). There is, I think, an answer to this question that is directly linked to the kind of character that Superman is and what he represents.

Unlike most fictional heroes, Superman, of course, has no real weaknesses (yes, yes, I know there is the whole kryponite thing, but you can't continually write that into every adventure, and Man of Steel doesn't). The challenges faced by Superman in the stories written about him are generally not to survive and save the day because his survival is essentially a given. He just needs to save the day. After all, he is Superman. We can forgive Batman or even the Green Lantern their mistakes and the possible collateral damage that might result from those failures. After all, they are only men. But the tension created in a story about a man who cannot die rests solely on his ability to perfectly perform his duties. After all, he really is less a man than he is a god.

The test of a character like Superman will not answer the question, “Will he be able to do it?” It is “How will he do it?,” and especially, “How well will he do it?”

If one asked, “Why are so many picking on God for destroying a few hundred thousand people when his actions clearly save billions?,” the unreasonable nature of the question should become immediately obvious. Dude, he is God. We should expect a bit more from him than that.

This, of course, has always been the problem of Superman in comic books and film, and it is also the problem of Superman in video games.

Since the fail-state of action gaming has so often been measured in “lives,” there isn't really a conventional way to represent a superman. Superman has no “health bar.” And he really has unlimited “lives.”

Superman video games have commonly led to some of the most unsatisfying gaming experiences ever. Like the infamous E.T. cartridge for the Atari 2600, Superman 64 is often held up as one of the worst games of all time. Admittedly, the game just featured bad gameplay and bad controls, but its handling of the problem of Superman's vulnerability was also just awful and hackneyed and related to that bad gameplay. A “kryponite fog” surrounding Metropolis explains Superman's vulnerability. His near omnipotent powers are also limited, as he has to collect tokens, which enable their use only temporarily, making sense, perhaps, from the perspective of creating a challenge in a game but not a game about a super hero whose powers are nearly unlimited and should essentially be “always on.”

2002's Superman: Shadow of Apokolips seems to have found the most graceful solution to the problem of an invincible main character and one which addresses Gibron's question. Superman has no traditional health bar in that game. His “health bar” really represents the health of the city of Metropolis and its inhabitants. This seems a tremendously clever and seemingly perfect mechanism to measure the relative successfulness of a man whose only responsibility is to concern himself with the well being of others and not with his own. The unfortunate outcome, though, of this creation of a reasonable fail-state for a superman is that it led to a series of challenges that simply were not fun to play and that also represent the kinds of challenges that are generally considered to be the least fun kind of experiences in action video games generally.

Much of what Superman has to accomplish in Shadow of Apokolips boils down to timed missions in which Superman has to save something or some group of individuals from destruction or death. Essentially, challenges in Shadow of Apokolips come down to something like the much maligned escort missions of the action game genre (challenges in video games in which you have to protect a highly vulnerable character that is controlled by the AI as they move from point A to point B). Most players find these missions highly stressful and, thus, less than entertaining to accomplish. The escort mission is, again, infamously held up as the worst moment in just about any game that features them. So, one can imagine how “anti-fun” a game might be that is essentially wholly constructed around a series of them.

A test of Superman is a test of selflessness and our expectations of a being that is completely selfless, despite his omnipotence. And, perhaps, selfless behaviors are just not that much fun to enact. In games, we like to level up, to become more powerful, and to experience that growth in our own potential. Sure, we may be motivated to save a princess, but there is some potential positive outcome for ourselves in doing so. We get a princess. Testing our character in the context of omnipotence, instead, most often leads to the more fiendish lab rat experimentation of the kinds of torture chambers that can be constructed in a godgame like The Sims (perhaps by building a pool with no ladder for a swimming sim to use to climb out of that pool or by constructing a room with no doors that contains a sim, an espresso machine, and no toilet), not a test of omnibenevolence and perfectibility.

It's not easy being Superman, and it may simply not be fun to simulate our actual expectations of him.

White Hills epic '80s callback
Stop Mute Defeat is a determined march against encroaching imperial darkness; their eyes boring into the shadows for danger but they're aware that blinding lights can kill and distort truth. From "Overlord's" dark stomp casting nets for totalitarian warnings to "Attack Mode", which roars in with the tribal certainty that we can survive the madness if we keep our wits, the record is a true and timely win for Dave W. and Ego Sensation. Martin Bisi and the poster band's mysterious but relevant cool make a great team and deliver one of their least psych yet most mind destroying records to date. Much like the first time you heard Joy Division or early Pigface, for example, you'll experience being startled at first before becoming addicted to the band's unique microcosm of dystopia that is simultaneously corrupting and seducing your ears. - Morgan Y. Evans

The year in song reflected the state of the world around us. Here are the 70 songs that spoke to us this year.

70. The Horrors - "Machine"

On their fifth album V, the Horrors expand on the bright, psychedelic territory they explored with Luminous, anchoring the ten new tracks with retro synths and guitar fuzz freakouts. "Machine" is the delicious outlier and the most vitriolic cut on the record, with Faris Badwan belting out accusations to the song's subject, who may even be us. The concept of alienation is nothing new, but here the Brits incorporate a beautiful metaphor of an insect trapped in amber as an illustration of the human caught within modernity. Whether our trappings are technological, psychological, or something else entirely makes the statement all the more chilling. - Tristan Kneschke

"...when the history books get written about this era, they'll show that the music community recognized the potential impacts and were strong leaders." An interview with Kevin Erickson of Future of Music Coalition.

Last week, the musician Phil Elverum, a.k.a. Mount Eerie, celebrated the fact that his album A Crow Looked at Me had been ranked #3 on the New York Times' Best of 2017 list. You might expect that high praise from the prestigious newspaper would result in a significant spike in album sales. In a tweet, Elverum divulged that since making the list, he'd sold…six. Six copies.

Under the lens of cultural and historical context, as well as understanding the reflective nature of popular culture, it's hard not to read this film as a cautionary tale about the limitations of isolationism.

I recently spoke to a class full of students about Plato's "Allegory of the Cave". Actually, I mentioned Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" by prefacing that I understood the likelihood that no one had read it. Fortunately, two students had, which brought mild temporary relief. In an effort to close the gap of understanding (perhaps more a canyon or uncanny valley) I made the popular quick comparison between Plato's often cited work and the Wachowski siblings' cinema spectacle, The Matrix. What I didn't anticipate in that moment was complete and utter dissociation observable in collective wide-eyed stares. Example by comparison lost. Not a single student in a class of undergraduates had partaken of The Matrix in all its Dystopic future shock and CGI kung fu technobabble philosophy. My muted response in that moment: Whoa!

Allen Ginsberg and Robert Lowell at St. Mark's Church in New York City, 23 February 1977

Scholar Christopher Grobe crafts a series of individually satisfying case studies, then shows the strong threads between confessional poetry, performance art, and reality television, with stops along the way.

Tracing a thread from Robert Lowell to reality TV seems like an ominous task, and it is one that Christopher Grobe tackles by laying out several intertwining threads. The history of an idea, like confession, is only linear when we want to create a sensible structure, the "one damn thing after the next" that is the standing critique of creating historical accounts. The organization Grobe employs helps sensemaking.